SWA/AirTran CSA-Ramp SLI?

[SWA717]

++1 Lear. It really is astonishing.

 

[redflyer65]

I think he was referring to the idea that the SWA gate agents won't want a repeat of that SLI... ever again... so they might oust IAM and go in-house like SWAPA to protect against a repeat of these results in future acquisitions/mergers.

People do funny things when they're pi$$ed off. Hence USAir/AWA going on a decade plus now...

Maybe USAPA will take them...

Just kidding.

 

[SWA Bubba]

What I found humorous is that all those comments are moderated. Meaning that someone at Corporate looks at them and approves them before they are posted to read.

Last year when I heard they were going to change our pass policies to mirror SWA (limiting our significant others to just a few round-trips per year instead of unlimited like if we were married to them), I posted a comment saying please don't do that, change the SWA policy to mirror ours, which would benefit SWA employees and not penalize us. It never got posted. Yet they can spew anger and vitriol at us just fine, it gets left up for a few days while people have the opportunity to read it, then it gets pulled down because "it's not in the spirit of Southwest." Then how did it get posted to begin with?

That was the last time I logged into SWALife to do anything except list myself for a commute and check loads.

My favorite part from the email about the CSA SLI?



LOLOLOL REALLY??? So management formulating the entire SLI, the ratios, the no upgrade until 2015, all the critical portions of the SLI, then telling us we won't be integrated and eventually our airline will cease to exist if we don't sign it... that's not determining an outcome?

We just sat back and had a drink last night after reading that. Nothing else you can really do about it. All I can say is congratulations to the CSA agents, the one and only labor group to get a fair integration. Good for them.

"Fair" is in the eye of the beholder. You'd think that a good union guy like you should know that. Of all the labor group SLI agreements (either negotiated and voted OR arbitrated by neutral outsiders) this is the only one that thought straight DOH was "fair." The rest all had some amount of applied seniority bias added to the Airtran side to account for the increased pay, benefits, and security of the Southwest side. That's what neutral people saw as "fair."

This particular decision was made not by negotiators or an arbitrator, but by IAM national (since Aitran CSAs and CS&S agentss weren't even in a union in the first place) based on their internal policies and expediency.

By the way, this integration applies to CSAs (Customer Service Agents)and CS&S folks (Reservations people) only, not rampers or anyone else. Rampers are TWU.

Speaking of fair, here's a few tidbits from the agreement that struck people wrongly. At Southwest, part-time employees accrue seniority at 70% of their years served. Plus, if you move to a different job (say, go from being a ramper to a Ops agent), you keep your longevity for vacations and such, but start over on the seniority list, i.e. you're at the bottom of the Ops agent list for bidding. In this decree, IAM disregarded all that, so that 1) a Airtran CSA with 10 years' part time service actually is on the integrated list theee years ahead of a Southwest CSA with 10 years' part time service, and 2) an Airtran CSA with 5 years as a ramper and one year as a CSA is on the CSA list at the six-year point, while a Southwest CSA with the exact same career is on the CSA list at the one-year point. That still sound fair to you, Lear? Or or you in the mindset of "well, we got screwed, so it's only 'fair' that someone at Southwest gets screwed." Please tell me that's not the case.

Bubba

 

[Lear70]

Maybe USAPA will take them...

Just kidding.

OK, that was funny... :beer:

 

[Lear70]

"Fair" is in the eye of the beholder. You'd think that a good union guy like you should know that.

Can't argue that, but my original "happy point" with our integration (as well as others) has always been Date of Hire. Before I was involved, that was what I was writing the MEC for, telling them not to come back without it.

We can argue the issue ad-nauseum (again), but the simple fact is that the majority of our employees will always believe that Date of Hire was the ultimate "fair" point, and we didn't get it. Unfortunately, we can't do anything about it, and most of us are too old (in our 40's with families to support) to go somewhere and start over.

As a result, since we're going to be reminded of it every day for the next decade when we're still sitting in the right seat tossing gear for some guy who believes "we won the lottery", it's going to be a long time before those feelings go away. Many won't voice them, but that's what they're really thinking, whether they admit it to an OSW guy or not. They're just doing what they have to do to survive.

Of all the labor group SLI agreements (either negotiated and voted OR arbitrated by neutral outsiders) this is the only one that thought straight DOH was "fair." The rest all had some amount of applied seniority bias added to the Airtran side to account for the increased pay, benefits, and security of the Southwest side. That's what neutral people saw as "fair."

What "neutral" people? There weren't any for the pilots or the F/A's.

If your'e talking about the dispatchers and mechanics, there's a large disparity from pilots that there are no upgrades to be affected by seniority. That's ALWAYS been taken into account in PILOT arbitrations, not to mention that if we were the first to arbitration, there was no "precedent" among other employee groups in the same airlines, thus the result would undoubtedly have been different.

Can't say for certain, we'll never know, but our pilots will always believe we would have done much better in arbitration and we were denied that opportunity in violation of the Process Agreement. There simply isn't an argument that counters that simple truth for us. I understand the SWA pilots feel differently, but this is our reality; we're living it, and it can't be debated away, any differently than we can change the way you feel about it.

This particular decision was made not by negotiators or an arbitrator, but by IAM national (since Aitran CSAs and CS&S agentss weren't even in a union in the first place) based on their internal policies and expediency.

They did it to keep from getting sued, plain and simple. If they had sided with SWA CSA's, the AAI CSA's would have sued for DFR since the IAM National would have violated their own Policy Manual by going away from DoH.

That said, there's a REASON that Date of Hire is their Gold Standard, why it's also mentioned in other union's bylaws, and why so many arbitrators work very closely around it. It's simply fair. Tweak it a little, that's fine, but tweak it so much that you end up with a windfall (like capturing all our CA seats), and you get away from any perception of fairness.

Speaking of fair, here's a few tidbits from the agreement that struck people wrongly. At Southwest, part-time employees accrue seniority at 70% of their years served. Plus, if you move to a different job (say, go from being a ramper to a Ops agent), you keep your longevity for vacations and such, but start over on the seniority list, i.e. you're at the bottom of the Ops agent list for bidding. In this decree, IAM disregarded all that, so that 1) a Airtran CSA with 10 years' part time service actually is on the integrated list theee years ahead of a Southwest CSA with 10 years' part time service, and 2) an Airtran CSA with 5 years as a ramper and one year as a CSA is on the CSA list at the six-year point, while a Southwest CSA with the exact same career is on the CSA list at the one-year point. That still sound fair to you, Lear? Or or you in the mindset of "well, we got screwed, so it's only 'fair' that someone at Southwest gets screwed." Please tell me that's not the case.

Well, that means you assume that I think the Southwest CSA's got screwed. I don't.

Do I believe a part-timer should get the same seniority as a full-time employee? Of course not, but that's the fallout from the internal IAM policy.

Do I believe someone who transferred from one ground position to another ground position should retain their full date-of-hire seniority? No, but that would go back to a RELATIVE seniority argument, which is what you're saying should have been taken into account here.

I don't think anyone should be screwed. We got screwed.

All our CA's got screwed. Our senior F/O's who now won't upgrade for over a decade and will be on reserve almost everywhere in the system East of the Mississippi until the remainder of our junior 717 F/O's transition to the 737 got screwed. The only ones who really made out are the junior F/O's who never had the deliveries at AAI to expect an upgrade, who were going to be on the bottom from a Date of Hire perspective anyway, and who now will make over $1M more over their career.

People keep talking about "It was only a 2 1/2 year seniority hit"... they forget that it came at a time when SWA hired almost 1/4 of your current total seniority list pilots (600-800 per year). In actuality, in terms of real numbers compared to overall historic hiring at SWA, it's closer to a 5 year loss.

So yes, I applaud a Date of Hire award. Do I recognize that parts of it are unfair? Certainly. Do I think that, overall, it's the most fair? Sounds like relative seniority would have been better, but I still think DoH is more fair than losing years of seniority across the board.

YMMV

 

[LGU]

Sorry Lear, but that's screwed up!

You'd be screaming bloody murder if a former ramper who became pilot kept his ramp hire date seniority on the pilot side. The RSW crews have to give up thier seniority to move departments, and are hot to be behind people of their junior in department from AT. All of which were not IAM until this deal was announced.

You talk of how you see things and the injustices that burden your mind. Just remember the majority of the grunts that really make an airline move have a new chip on their sholder, and you crying about how you were made to work in what most would call a better situation and your brotheren that want to be at SWA will bear the brunt of that ill will.

Might not be right, but it's the way it is.

LGU

 

[redflyer65]

Lear,

I agree that in the past, the SWAlife comments were moderated. Look at them now. Not very moderated. There are alot of pissed off SW CSAs, etc. It is what it is. But when we were in negotiations(pilots), alot of those people wondered what the big deal was.....I think they understand it now. Makes a difference when it gets personal.

 

[K-Mart]

Anybody that reads SWALIFE comments needs to get their head examined or get a life

 

[redflyer65]

Anybody that reads SWALIFE comments needs to get their head examined or get a life

I don't typically read them K-mart, but the tone has definitely changed. That's my only point. I could careless if you read them or not.

 

[humveedriver]

Lear,

I agree that in the past, the SWAlife comments were moderated. Look at them now. Not very moderated. There are alot of pissed off SW CSAs, etc. It is what it is. But when we were in negotiations(pilots), alot of those people wondered what the big deal was.....I think they understand it now. Makes a difference when it gets personal.

So true. I remember out flight attendants giving us crap when we were upset about our deal (not all, but many). They were concerned that the pilots might scuttle the whole deal. I would just laugh and say to anyone who gave me grief " don't worry, you will get your chance at the SLI game, and don't come crying to me when you do".